Archive for category Defense
NASA’s New Role: Diplomacy
Posted by Tom in Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Terrorism on July 6, 2010
Stretch goals are important, they compel reaching, thinking outside the box, innovation, risk-taking; yes and ultimately excellence. Where better to expand U.S. horizons than at the space agency, NASA? Kennedy challenged a shot for a man moon landing in 1961, a dramatic stretch goal. This to answer the Russians unmanned landing in 1959. The challenged worked: on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon.
What’s Obama’s stretch goal for NASA? Well …, er …., it’s diplomacy. Yes, you heard right, diplomacy. Obama wants better relations. With whom you ask. The Muslims! Not the English, the Poles, the Germans, nor the Israelis; no, the Muslims.
According to this Fox News item, “NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his “foremost” mission as the head of America’s space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.” Bizarre! Mars? No, the Muslim world!
And, note the contrast with Kennedy. JFK was answering the USSR. It was an “in your face” response to an enemy seeking to burry us. Obama confronts Islamists seeking to burry us. What’s he do? Well, he goes about the Middle East bowing, scraping and apologizing for the United States. Oh, and he gives NASA a charge to improve relations with Muslims.
Hussein Obama is well named!
Unprotected Against Jihad
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Individual Freedom, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, Military Policy, National Character, Terrorism on June 1, 2010
Hussein Obama’s counterterrorism tzar, John Brennan trivializes the danger of Islam according to Andy McCarthy in today’s NRO post, An Islam of Their Very Own. The article is a must read with only two conclusions possible: Obama is stupid or naive or he is converting the U.S. to sharia, that is Islamic law. In essence, become Muslim or die, so ruled Mohamed after his militant successes.
“Brennan admonished that we must not “describe our enemy as ‘jihadists.’” Why not? “Because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam.” Right again. There is no gainsaying that jihad is deemed to be a divine injunction in Islam. If one regards all forms of Islam as “legitimate,” then jihad, too, must be legitimate. Yet “legitimate” is a slippery concept. It could mean that something is good. Or it could just mean that something is authentic — something that really exists, for good or ill.
“Islam falls into the latter category. It exists. In many of its iterations — not just al-Qaeda’s ideology but Islamist ideology, which is quite mainstream — Islam means the West existential harm. This is why we are supportive of reformist Muslims, however pessimistic some of us may be about their prospects. The point, though, is that Islam is not going away. It is part of the hand we are dealt, like it or not. We don’t need to trash-talk it gratuitously, but neither should we pretend that it is an asset on our security ledger. It’s not.
“Alas, the Hope administration doesn’t see it that way. For Brennan, as for Obama, Islam is immovably in the first category: “legitimate” as in “good” — end of discussion. To sculpt this alternative reality, two things are required. First, we must ignore Islam’s many troublesome elements — e.g., its supremacism, inequality, intolerance, denial of freedom of conscience, endorsement of violence, etc. Second, to the extent that the resulting atrocities can’t be ignored, we must pretend that what ails the Islamic world is our fault, not Islam’s.”
Andy’s point echos the points made during Herman Pirchner’s presentation and discussion at our last Reno Hayek dinner, namely that radical Islam and its Jihad is closer to the Koran than any reformist/secular branch of that “religion.” I put that in quotes to denote that it is more than just our concept of “religion;” it is government, society and religion in the sense that Mohamed imposed upon his conquests.
Here’s my empirical observation: not many, if any, Moslems have condemned the Jihads, the terror, the 911 carnage, the call to exterminate Israel.
These people are backward, immoral, intolerant, and violent. They advocate or tolerate “supremacism, inequality, intolerance, denial of freedom of conscience, endorsement of violence, etc.” For them, the end justifies the means, no matter how distorted either end or means in reality are. They blow themselves up in hopes of “virgins in heaven.” Pity those few virgins in number! But, that is the level of their intelligence.
Hussein Obama apparently ignores “man caused disasters.” Islam is good because he wishes it so. This is contrary to the reality that we witness every day. Islam is bad.
“Our political leaders can continue to trivialize jihad as if it were some benign struggle to brush after every meal. They can continue to ignore the core tenets that make sharia antithetical to a free, self-determining society. But they can’t do that and do the only job we need them to do: protect our lives and our liberties.” Andy McCarthy’s article is a must read.
Hussein Obama is hell-bent-for-leather to “hope and change” the United States into an Islamic nation under Sharia law. Be very fearful for our nation.
Two Hypocritical Presidents
Posted by Tom in Defense, Homeland Security, Immigration on May 21, 2010
Hussein Obama continues to denigrate and debase America. The latest, he stood side by side with Felipe Calderon and and joined in Calderon’s criticism of the Arizona law that authorizes enforcement of U.S. law on illegal entry into the U.S. He is a hypocrite because the U.S statute which he has not enforced is more susceptible to profiling than the Arizona law. Calderon is a hypocrite because the Mexican law on illegal entry is worse than the U.S. law in terms of its harsh application. But to stand by Calderon’s side while Calderon demeans one of these United States is unforgivable for any American president.
William Bennett and Seth Leibsohn have an excellent article on the subject in NRO: “Allowing the running down of a part of the United States by the head of a foreign government, at the White House, standing next to the president — who not only didn’t challenge him, but encouraged him — is a foreign- and domestic-policy catastrophe. And in any catastrophe, one has to ask what were the conditions or causes that led to such a thing. Did the president tell Mr. Calderón ahead of time it would be okay to blast away at Arizona, which is to blast away at the United States? Or, less likely, was nothing said ahead of time and Mr. Calderón simply took note of the administration’s statements about Arizona thus far? Or, had Mr. Calderón simply observed over the past year not only President Obama and his administration’s take-down of Arizona but President Obama’s other attitudes about America, such as his bowing to foreign leaders and his calling America “arrogant,” “dismissive,” and “derisive” of our allies?
“There are nearly half a million illegal immigrants in Arizona. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, while illegal immigrants make up 9 percent of the Arizona population, they are responsible for 22 percent of the felonies in Arizona and they constitute 11 percent of the state prison population. Arizona is now the kidnapping capital of the United States, and Phoenix has the second-largest kidnapping problem in the world (second to Mexico City).”
“According to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, kidnapping in Arizona increased 402 percent between 2004 and 2008, with almost 70 percent of the kidnapping cases submitted for prosecution involving illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants account for 16.5 percent of those sentenced for violent crimes; 18.5 percent of those sentenced for property crimes; 33.5 percent of those sentenced for the manufacture, sale, or transport of drugs; and 44.4 percent of those sentenced or forgery and fraud in the Phoenix area. And, according to DOJ statistics, three Border Patrol agents are assaulted on the average day at or near the U.S. border. Someone is kidnapped every 35 hours in Phoenix, Ariz. — mostly by agents of alien-smuggling organizations. And one in five American teenagers last year used some type of illegal drug, many of which were imported across the unsecured U.S.-Mexico border. For example, most of the cocaine and meth consumed in America comes in from Mexico, and in some states, over 90 percent of the marijuana consumed is from Mexico.”
There is a compelling interest for the Arizona law because there is no adequate enforcement of the federal law nor adequate security of our Mexican boarder. Perhaps that’s why a majority of Americans agree with the Arizona position according to a recent Fox News Poll.
Super Power to Super Wimp
Posted by Tom in Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Military Policy, National Character on May 20, 2010
How weak can we be? Charles Krauthhammer answers the question in today’s NRO post, The Fruits of Weakness. The Iran-Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make the nuclear bomb and continues accelerated enrichment. Even the French say the deal will help Iran continue its nuclear program. The joint hands up photo is the collective finger to the weak Hussein Omama.
“That picture — a defiant, triumphant “take that” to Uncle Sam — is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched thisadministration in action, have decided that there’s no cost to lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.”
Iran Obama overtures and appeasements rejected, Obama acquiescence to Russia’s reformation of its USSR sphere of influence, Obama appeasement of Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, are all examples of our weakness, our desire to withdraw and disarm.
“This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat — accepting, ratifying, and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.”
“Given Obama’s policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There’s nothing to fear from Obama and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one’s friends and punishing one’s enemies.”
Hussein Obama Is Anti-semitic
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Military Policy on April 16, 2010
Investors Business Daily editorializes on Obama’s bullying of Israel today in a convincing piece, Israel Or Terrorists. “Are we Israel’s staunch ally? Or, do we blame the Jewish state for Islamist violence? An increasingly anti-Israel U.S. government cannot have it both ways.”
The article goes on to show Obama’s attempt to make the West Bank and Gaza the equivalent of the Nazis’ Buchenwald. A grossly false comparison, which unfortunately our president is wont to do.
But the real punch is the stupidity of the Obama policy. Instead of returning the Mideast to a Garden of Eden, a Palestinian settlement would only embolden terrorists to push harder for a Sharia world.
Again, our Neville Chamberlain president shows his true bias. He is anti-semitic.
Obama: the “peace in our times” president
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Military Policy, Terrorism on April 14, 2010
Like a broadway scripted play Obama is into his foreign policy-defense act. (This, the act that follows Obamacare!) It is, to paraphrase Shakespeare’s Macbeth, a policy “Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Act 5, Scene 5)
No, that is to naive but not too harsh. As I think Clifford May’s tax day NRO post, The Obama Doctrine, points out well, Obama has showcased his photo-op national security initiatives: the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (STARTT), new National Security Strategy (NSS) and his international Nuclear Security Summit with 40 heads of state.
- STARTT: Reduce US/Russian nukes by 30% for good example to others. “That’s a lovely vision, but which do you think is more likely: that rogue regimes will see these reductions as virtuous and emulate them? Or that they will see these reductions as an opportunity and exploit them?”
- NSS: We pledge not to use nukes against non-nuclear nations. But we fail to define our non-nation enemies. Obama strips terms like “islamic extremism” from the document for fear of offending! We’re back to “man-caused disasters” and “overseas contingency operations.” ” Imagine if President Roosevelt had decided not to speak about German Nazism, lest he offend Germans who were not Nazis, nor utter the words “Italian Fascism” since not all Italians were of the Fascist persuasion, and of course refrained from mentioning Japanese militarism . . . you get the idea.”
- Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit made little progress on cleaning up “loose nukes” and ignored Iran and North Korea.
- NPR: Obama will not modernize our nuclear weapons nor will he use nukes against enemy attacks against us with chemical or biological weapons. In other words, deterrence is a thing of the past. The policy will “actually provide our adversaries with an incentive to accelerate development of offensive capabilities. They clearly do nothing to strengthen deterrence.” Deterrence is what has kept us safe since 1945. The concept that attacks on us or our allies will not bring measured response but extreme, disproportionate devastation is what prevented such attacks. In this regard, Obama is the equivalent of the Russian in Dr. Strangelove who kept the doomsday machine secret, Obama wants to eliminate deterrence–really dumb!
Finally, our own Neville Chamberlain has decided to eliminate necessary missile-defense! “President Obama has scrapped a missile-defense system for eastern Europe, cut the number of planned deployed ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California from 44 to 30 (these provide the only protection to the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missiles), cut $1.5 billion from the missile-defense budget (then, curiously, restored about $600 million), and nominated a missile-defense opponent, Philip Coyle, as his top missile-defense adviser.”
In sum, the “Obama Doctrine” postures against non-existant threats, fails to treat real threats, and removes and reduces our defense capability. He’s an articulate empty-suit and a danger to our security.
Afghan Failure Easy To Predict
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Military Policy on April 7, 2010
Tony Blankley’s post in today’s RCP, puts it on the line, Replace Karzai, or Get Our Troops Out. Essentially as has been well reported there has been a break with Karzai which itself was easily predictable, given that we are without a necessary local partner, and given the fact that we are unable to replace him, we should get our troops out of there. If 911s occur in the future, we use extraordinary means to show the Allah can send a thunderbolt using the U.S. as his agent. That means heavy payback with heavy but unavoidable “collateral damage.” Think in terms of Tokyo during the final days of WWII. This is my take not Blankley’s.
That said, Blankley railes as others have on the poor Afghan troop decision that there would be a withdrawal in 18 months. If the superpower is not going to stay the course, the locals make new–or in this case old–friends! That is what has happened.
My December 3rd, Afghanistan Was the Easy Decision, post quoted a Ralph Peters article calling Obama’s troop decision a “bait and switch.” He said it send the following messages: ”To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I’ve written off. To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp. To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered. To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country. To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).” This is pretty close to what is happening, and easy to predict.
With all the credit Obama deserves for his predator assassinations at the Pakistan boarder, he messed up the opportunity to secure some of Afghanistan’s warring tribes. By telescoping an 18 month withdrawal to appease his leftist base he unnecessarily subjected our troops to risk, death and worse. He should get out. Set up a strong Pakistan relationship and make that the line of regional defense.
He has recently embarked on a dangerous voluntary nuclear disarmament which will hurt us after the next 911 when we need to show that Allah is mad at Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Cover-Up With Diversion
Posted by Tom in Defense, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Military Policy, Terrorism on March 22, 2010
Why has Hussein Obama single handedly created a crisis with Israel? He has ordered Secretary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a detailed ultimatum! All over some trumped up building plans in East Jerusalem. In effect he’s blaming Israel for all that is wrong in the Middle East.
Caroline Glick in her RCP post, Obama’s War on Israel, speculates on some intriguing answers:
- His assault on Israel is related to the failure of his Iran policy. He has residential construction to blame for Iran’s bad behavior and nuclear nose thumbing!
- He hopes to bring down Netanyahu and replace him with the leftist Tzipi Livni as more of an Obama puppet.
- He prefers dealing with the unelected Arab dictators in Iran and Syria to the democratically elected Israeli government and downgrading relations with the latter is a condition to better dealings with the dictators who want to exterminate Israel.
Since his election Hussein Obama has been on a world-wind tour bowing, scraping and apologizing for America. He denies the country’s greatness and exceptionalism. It was telling that in doing so he equated America to Greece, that bankrupt PIIG and member of “club Med.”
It is obvious that Obama has failed in Iran and failed generally in the region. He has demonstrated his personal weakness to ally and for alike and now seems to prefer kissing up the Arab dictators. I suspect that there is a reason his middle name is Hussein.
It would be one thing if Obama were simply an embarrassment to his countrymen, but his policies in the region have truly put American security at greater risk. 2012 can’t come too soon; we need a strong president who will keep this country safe.
Ready, Aim, Shoot…….Yourself In The Foot
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Military Policy, Terrorism on March 14, 2010
These guys are really stupid. This week we saw Biden, Clinton, and now Axelrod jump all over Israel for zoning additional residences in Jerusalem. Jennifer Rubin pens the latest today in her Commentary post, It Gets Worse. She quotes Likud Party’s Danny Dandon who called Clinton’s “meddling in internal Israeli decisions regarding the development” of Jerusalem “uninvited and unhelpful. In fact it is sheer chutzpah.” After all these are zoning decisions regarding Jerusalem’s primary city!
Let me recap Hussein Obama and his three stooges, Biden, Clinton, and Axelrod are dissing our only reliable ally in the Middle East, a nuclear power, the only democracy, and a staunch supporter of the United States. The illegitimate Iranian government is fomenting unrest in Palestine and at the same time developing nuclear weapons which will destabilize the region, at the very least. Open-hand Obama is kowtowing and apologizing for America in the Middle East.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? Do we really have an American president? Commander in Chief?
Russia and the New World Order
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, Military Policy on February 20, 2010
Mark Steyn’s column, Keeping You Safe, in the February 20th NRO is too important not to highlight. He starts out lightly, panning the nanny state protections foisted by the western governments on their citizens.
He gets to the heart of the matter quickly: Iran is going nuclear rather quickly. Last year it had 400 centrifuges enriching uranium to 3.5%; this year it has 8,000 enriching uranium to 20%. Dirty bomb quality, yes; but warhead quality, not quite, not yet. Mark doesn’t fail to point out the brilliant intelligence agencies over paid and all too prone to failure reported two years ago that Tehran had ended its weapons program in 2003! CIA director Leon Panetta now concedes this may be wrong!
To the heart of the matter, the consequences of a nuclear Iran, Steyn is intelligent and forward thinking: “But even without launching a single missile, Iran will at a stroke have transformed much of the map — and not just in the Middle East, where the Sunni dictatorships face a choice between an unsought nuclear arms race and a future as Iranian client states. In Eastern Europe, a nuclear Iran will vastly advance Russia’s plans for a de facto reconstitution of its old empire: In an unstable world, Putin will offer himself as the protection racket you can rely on. And you’d be surprised how far west “Eastern” Europe extends: Moscow’s strategic view is of a continent not only energy-dependent on Russia but also security-dependent. And, when every European city is within range of Tehran and other psycho states, there’ll be plenty of takers for that when the alternative is an effete and feckless Washington.” This article is a must read.
Sleep safely folks, your government and Obama’s “open handed” world view is protecting you!
Tom Motherway